Forums | MacLife

An older way has been found- saffron, schmaffron.

Afghans’ hearts and minds swayed by money
U.S. Marines make amends for damages to homes with cash

DAHANEH, Afghanistan (AP) - The U.S. Marines came uninvited to Abdul-Hamid's home in this southern Afghan town and made their presence felt.

They blew holes in the mud walls that surround the several small buildings in his family's compound, broke through rooms hunting for weapons and militants, and handcuffed and blindfolded the men. Their main target: Abdul-Hamid's neighbor and the neighbor's sons, all suspected insurgents.

Less than a week later, Abdul-Hamid, a 50-year-old farmer who uses only one name, trotted alongside a staff sergeant, listing every broken item in his home. It was payback time — literally.

As winning the "hearts and minds" of ordinary Afghans becomes a higher priority in the war on the Taliban and al-Qaida, U.S. troops are finding that one of the most potent weapons in their arsenal is hard cash.

Under a special allocation from Congress, a project called the Commander Emergency Relief Program uses American taxpayer dollars to repay Afghans for damage caused during military operations.

The program isn't new. Commanders have been doling out money in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to compensate civilians for combat losses.

But it's new here in the Now Zad Valley, where there have been no significant numbers of international forces for years until Marines entered the area this month.

In the valley, the image of U.S. and NATO troops was one presented by the Taliban. U.S. commanders hope the compensation program will help change that image.

Region allotted $250 million

Refill their wallets, their hearts and minds will follow.

robco wrote:

Eliminating our need for MidEast oil will eliminate our need to care about what goes on there.

Eliminating our MidEast oil needs will eliminate our concern over the bulk of the world's poppy/ opium/ heroin, and the funds derived from the sale thereof? We're not decriminalizing heroin anytime soon, and even if we did we'd still have the addicts, they'd still have the sales- we'd reduce a bit of street crime, little more. Kidding aside, saffron and other alternatives should still have a role in this. Hearts & minds aren't equivalent to the agricultural economics.

NTM 'eliminating our MidEast oil needs' isn't happening anytime soon.

Afghanistan is a smurf. It always has been a smurf, it always will be a smurf. We failed to learn a lesson the Soviets also failed to learn. We're not going to achieve anything there. It's going to be just as big a money sink as Iraq - if not more so. Iraq at least has oil. Afghanistan has nothing of value except opium. Oil is the only valuable commodity the region possesses - at least valuable to the west. Eliminate the need for it and we can ignore the region like we ignore Africa.

We simply don't have the resources for a long, expensive campaign. We've been there for eight years, it's time to leave. I'm sick of US time and resources being spent everywhere in the world except the US. If we halved our military budget and stopped these ill-conceived moralistic campaigns, we'd be well on the way to eliminating our own budget deficit, or providing much-needed services to US citizens. We'd have great education and health care. Our NATO "allies" are getting smart and getting the hell out. We should do the same.

If people want to slowly kill themselves with heroin, that's their choice. And I couldn't care less about winning the hearts and minds of people in foreign lands. Let people in other countries solve their own problems with their own money for once.

If that is such a large concern, let other western nations shoulder more of the burden. If Europe can't be bothered, they can suffer the consequences with everyone else. If India and China want to take over, let them. They can have their coffers drained instead. They can become dependent on MidEast oil and send their soldiers to fight and die there and waste loads of money trying to control and influence the region.

Higher oil prices help make alternative energy much more viable. If being unable to consume large amounts of oil cheaply drives Americans to finally conserve and really invest in alternatives, so be it. The US doesn't need to control everything. It's the same sort of bullsmurf we've been fed since the Cold War, continually justifying throwing incredible amounts of money at the military-industrial complex to keep us safe from <insert "threat" du jour here> and protect US (corporate) interests. No thanks. The price is just too high.

Like Iraq, the goal posts keep getting moved. We have no idea what "victory" in Afghanistan is or should be. Our reasons for staying aren't the same as our reasons for going in the first place. If the goal was to take out the Taliban, mission accomplished. If the goal is to somehow root out all terrorist organizations and prevent them from taking hold, it's a fool's errand. It will never, ever happen.

And that's the problem. It's also an issue I have with the folks on the left who want the US to intervene in Darfur. We send troops there, stop the killing and then... ???? There's no planning beyond that point, no consideration of what constitutes a successful mission.

I guess what I really would like is for someone to try and summarize why the campaign in Afghanistan and the continued campaign in Iraq are worth American lives and tax dollars (money we don't have). Born in the waning years of Vietnam (not too old, but exactly "young"), I can barely remember a time when the US wasn't involved in something. From Grenada to Panama, Gulf War I, Somalia, Bosnia, Gulf War II... When is it going to end? I can understand why others want the US to be involved, but I also don't see how our continued military spending is sustainable. Like our oil dependence, it simply can't go on forever and ever. It has to stop some time and perhaps that some time is now, or at least very soon.

Well, I sure don't have time to address everything, & Rib's still our man on the ground there; also has a good grasp of the larger issues. I won't be dismissing his opinions out of hand, even if I take issue with a nuance or side point on occasion.

robco wrote:

We simply don't have the resources for a long, expensive campaign. We've been there for eight years, it's time to leave. I'm sick of US time and resources being spent everywhere in the world except the US.

Problem there is, simply being somewhere X length of time & tiring of it isn't a sound basis for decisionmaking. Yes, our resources are down, but... folks hear we have 3,000 troops somewhere and think that large... it's relative. When I was young we had over 550,000 troops in Nam; the B-52 fleet numbered about 1,000- and we still had troops in EU opposite the Warsaw Pact. I think the Army numbered around 3,000,000. That's a commitment, and a waste.

If people want to slowly kill themselves with heroin, that's their choice. And I couldn't care less about winning the hearts and minds of people in foreign lands. Let people in other countries solve their own problems with their own money for once.

You've a right to your opinion, but perhaps you misread mine. For me, tragic as it is, much as we owe for turning their country upside down these last two decades- the poppy fields and income therefrom are something to deny to the Taliban. What %age of it might go to AQ isn't known to me, but cutting their funding should be a priority. We've been lucky; we can't count on that continuing. They haven't given up and they still have means. You might feel differently seeing some loved ones die in a chemical strike on SF- they'd be beyond health care in a hurry. (And don't forget I stand more than most to benefit from resources coming home if they head to medicine; there's still no treatment for my condition).

Ribtorus wrote:

Drugs are a side issue. A war on A'stan drugs will be just so much theatre.

Afghanistan is set to be one of the key states through which pipelines cross. Whoever gets it, controls a great deal of east-west energy traffic. India and China have huge demands and Russia and its satellites have or want to have even greater control on the taps.

That America buys a significant amount of mid east oil is beside the point.

robco wrote:

If that is such a large concern, let other western nations shoulder more of the burden. If Europe can't be bothered, they can suffer the consequences with everyone else. If India and China want to take over, let them. They can have their coffers drained instead. They can become dependent on MidEast oil and send their soldiers to fight and die there and waste loads of money trying to control and influence the region.

Simplistic. And why should we suffer from their reluctance? I'm sure talks continue behind the scenes, tho constrained by the financial crisis.

Higher oil prices help make alternative energy much more viable. If being unable to consume large amounts of oil cheaply drives Americans to finally conserve and really invest in alternatives, so be it.

It doesn't, tho. Alternative energy is no cheaper if oil is expensive, just more necessary. And it involves short-medium term hardship you're better fixed to weather than many. I'm not so willing to suffer even more for your high-mindedness. We're already working on alternatives; keep at it but don't throw out the bathwater too.

'Americans' don't do R&D nor invest in new technologies. Corporations do. Owsley isn't down your street, cooking up a new wonderful energy source, tho his spiritual offspring might be homebrewing his own shake 'n' bake meth.

user wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I don't think the project was undertaken with any goal more complicated than taking down the Taliban. I don't believe there was any planning beyond that.

We sure as hell didn't get OBL. I just had Campy tap-dancing all around that one.

Letting OBL get away (Pakistani Intel likely involved), not following thru in A'stan but instead shifting to that needless other theater- that was the key mistake. Still better late than never, especially with those other issues emerging. No one's even mentioned the Taliban, Pakistani nukes and raids thereon recently. We have a vested interest in regional stability, and isolationism is seldom good policy.

Well the reason is partly true. It's really because of religious intolerance. OBL didn't like that infidels were in the the land of the pure.

sturner wrote:

Well the reason is partly true. It's really because of religious intolerance. OBL didn't like that infidels were in the the land of the pure.

I think that was just something that he used to rile up the idiots. He knew damn well that the Sauds had invited us.

robco wrote:

Like Iraq, the goal posts keep getting moved. We have no idea what "victory" in Afghanistan is or should be. Our reasons for staying aren't the same as our reasons for going in the first place. If the goal was to take out the Taliban, mission accomplished. If the goal is to somehow root out all terrorist organizations and prevent them from taking hold, it's a fool's errand. It will never, ever happen.

I don't think we've come close to taking out the Taliban.

We've just caused them to hone their operations.

But, when we're currently going through a recession, and the deficit is running extremely high, it is very easy to get frustrated with a war that has unclear goals. I think without the Bush admin constantly screaming "terror" in our ears, people are just starting to forget 9/11.

Unfortunately, Afghanistan is a huge country with little regional coherence, so the idea of a clear victory is ridiculous. We'll never be able to stop the taliban from taking foot in one of the many remote towns or villages.

But, it was one of Obama's campaign promises, and it was also give the republicans some ammo if he just said "sorry, lost cause for now, we don't have the resources for this."

It almost seems like we're at the point politically where NO president is going to be allowed to do anything, until we figure out what's going to happen with the debt/deficit. It seems to me this is going to be the biggest issue for the rest of the admin as well as for the next 2 presidential terms.

I wonder who was slated to get this.

Man pleads to violating laws in Army ammo sale
The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Aug 31, 2009 12:43:50 EDT
   
MIAMI — A man accused of a scheme to illegally ship nearly $300 million in Chinese-made ammunition to the Afghan military has entered a plea agreement that recommends he serve just two years of probation.

The deal with Efraim Diveroli, 23, of Miami Beach drops 84 counts of wrongdoing in exchange for his guilty plea to a conspiracy charge. In addition to probation, he will also be fined $500,000.

Diveroli’s AEY Inc. was awarded a $298 million Army contract to provide the ammunition to Afghanistan. The contract forbade exporting Chinese ammunition, but prosecutors say the company did that anyway, saying the rounds were from Albania.

Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 10.

He was doing OK during the recession, until...

...he got slapped on the wrist. At least he got fined. Wonder what his net worth is.

Last edited by Bat (2009-08-31 10:50 pm)

Jeffrey H. Sloman was appointed Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida on June 6, 2009, pursuant to the Vacancy Reform Act. 
[snip]
From October 2006 to his appointment as Acting United States Attorney, Mr. Sloman served as First Assistant U.S. Attorney to then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. As First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mr. Sloman supervised the daily legal and administrative operations of the Office, including more than 280 attorneys and 225 support personnel in the civil, criminal, appellate, and administrative divisions. During his tenure at the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Sloman has served as Chief of the District's Criminal Division (2004-2006), Chief of the Fort Lauderdale Branch Office (2003-2004), and Deputy Chief of the Fort Lauderdale Narcotics and Violent Crimes Section (2000-2002).

Mr. Sloman first joined the U.S. Attorney's Office in August 1990, after practicing commercial litigation for nearly six years with the Miami law firm of Kimbrell & Hamann, P.A. As a line Assistant U.S. Attorney, he prosecuted numerous high profile criminal matters involving narcotics trafficking, economic crimes, organized crime, and international terrorism. He is the recipient of two Department of Justice Awards for Superior Performance as an Assistant United States Attorney.

Mr. Sloman graduated from the University of Florida in 1980 with a bachelor's degree in political science and in 1983 from the University of Miami School of Law.

A Bushie1 who worked for Acosta (a big–time BushieII) is unreliable.

Last edited by daemon (2009-08-31 11:00 pm)

I think it's gotten too long and involved to be worth hassling out in real detail. Maybe a few things in passing.

robco wrote:

I strongly disagree. The Russians owe them big time. We don't. We didn't invade Afghanistan back in '89, the Russians did.

'79. And sorry, I somehow forgot to mention the Russians in my characterization. Yes, it's first and foremost their bad- OTOH, we both 'helped free them from Russian tyranny' while rather cynically using them as cannon fodder in a proxy war with Moscow. The CIA supplied them the Stingers that enabled them to shoot down many gunships in the mountain passes, making it overall a losing proposition for them in lives and treasure. But like Saruman, once that tool ceased to be of use, we dropped it [them] without a second thought. IIRC some promises went unfulfilled, but what were they going to do to us, half a world away? We found out.

Part of the reason AQ hates us isn't because we're a democracy, but because we've become entangled in a part of the world in which we have no right or business to.

Somewhat. I'm sure we agree that Iraq II was the big mistake. But it wasn't 'mission accomplished' against the Taliban or AQ; we drove the former from power and Kabul. OBL got away. Our followup was not impressive.

Instead of fighting them over there, how about spending the money making sure they can't get over here. Actually securing the borders, searching incoming cargo and screening real threats in airports. Why is military action the only solution? It's all we have. The US has become a one trick pony.

How would you do it, besides say 'spend the money to?' Our record on security is frankly poor, and you've also said spending money is what you want to avoid. We've got 3,000 miles of border north and south, NAFTA, and lousy shipping security. American don't make good Israelis, temperamentally, and they have short borders, few ports. Fortress America? We can't keep out illegal immigrants, let 'lone terrorists. Israel turned Mossad loose on the '72 Munich terrorists; unleash Blackwater? Mil action is one thing we're actually fairly good at. I don't think it should ever be first resort either, but fact is we've been handed one major SNAFU by eight years of Bush. All we can do is make the best of it.

(Time runs short. I wish for what you wish for, I just don't expect much.)

The military-industrial complex really does run the show and has successfully co-opted the hearts and minds of the people. Our continued militarism will bankrupt the country. At some point foreign countries will quit buying US debt and we'll have no choice but to stand down. I'd rather we didn't do that under those circumstances.

Nor I, but I don't think the military wants to go overseas and squander lives. Self-perpetuating bureacracies and all that goes with them, OTOH... not far apart on. And I don't think an MIC has really captured our hearts and minds; this war is increasingly unpopular. I sympathize; I wish it had never been, failing that that it'd end well and quickly. But I don't think it will.

KABUL (AP) - The commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan called Monday for a new strategy against the Taliban in an assessment of the 8-year-old conflict, saying the situation is serious but victory was achievable.

NATO officials disclosed that Gen. Stanley McChrystal is expected to separately request more forces to fight an increasingly deadly insurgency.
..

Boosting the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is a hot-button issue that could ignite furious debate in Washington on the U.S. military's future in an increasingly unpopular war. Some Democratic senators have increased calls for a timeline to draw down troops.

McChrystal sent his strategic review of the Afghan war to the Pentagon and NATO headquarters Monday. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered the 60-day review to size up the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan as Taliban attacks rise and U.S. deaths spiral upward.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said in a statement Monday.
..

Bolstering troop levels
The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan hinges on increasing the number of Afghan soldiers and police so U.S. forces can one day withdraw. Some 134,000 Afghan troops are to be trained by late 2011, but U.S. officials say that number will need to be greatly increased, an expansion that will be paid for by U.S. funds.

What we should have been doing all along, but no, we had to divert to Iraq, democratize the whole region by some kind of reverse domino effect. Crap. I can think of some guys with a lot to answer for.

Must go, hope that's enough for understanding.